To Be a Man

I discovered an interesting show recently. “James May’s Man Lab,” a British show starring Top Gear’s James May, where he builds manly things, gives manly advice, and resurrects various old manly pursuits such as how to serenade a woman, how to polish boots, and how to solve conflicts by dueling. He makes the argument that men have gone from capable beings making progress in science and art to incapable idiots who lack the discipline to solve their own problems. In many ways, it reminds me of my time in Scouting- I was taught how to shoot, handle, and be safe around firearms, how to build a shelter out of sticks, and how to recognize edible plants not because any one of those activities would make or break my life, but because the culmination of that education would grant a level of self-discipline, self-reliance, and a proactive attitude that simply made better men.

And so May is setting out likewise to teach skills and help men to be men again, but what I love is that his definition of manhood is just so... British. According to May, men should be able to play a musical instrument, invent and build whatever he is in need of, be versed in history and etiquette; heck, he even has a butler that blows a horn to start challenges. To him, manhood means intellectuality, self-reliance, and innovation.

Compare this definition of masculinity to the one usually found on internet man-rule lists or celebrated in American ‘Man show’ shows, (yes these are made for humor, but unfortunately humor is normally based on truth:)

*When out with the guys, never accept a call from your girlfriend—unless she's dying or trapped under a burning fuel truck, and if that's the case, make it quick.

*It is permissible to drink a fruity alcohol drink only when you're sunning on a tropical beach... and it's delivered by a topless model and only when it's free.

*We've all heard about people having guts or balls. But do you really know the difference between them? In an effort to keep you informed, the definition of each is listed below:
"GUTS" is arriving home late after a night out with the guys, being assaulted by your wife with a broom, and having the guts to say, "are you still cleaning or are you flying somewhere?"
"BALLS" is coming home late after a night out with the guys smelling of perfume and beer, lipstick on your collar, slapping your wife on the ass and having the balls to say, "You're next!"

A call to ignore your girlfriend, a description of ‘girly’ things to avoid at all costs, and permission to be a jerk. Not the most rousing call to arms.

As a father of 2 boys I think about masculinity a lot, and how to many masculinity isn’t much about what one does, but rather what one doesn’t do, and when people think of what men are actually supposed to do, it usually revolves around food, sports, booze and sex. Kenneth Maton, who did a survey of psychological studies of masculinity over the past 30 years, concluded that men are confined by traditional stereotypes that they should reject  “anything stereotypically feminine, to be tough and aggressive, suppress emotions (other than anger), distance themselves emotionally and physically from other men, and strive toward competition, success and power”

In some ways, this is simply the natural result of feminism. Masculinity used to infer a take-charge attitude, leadership, problem-solving, but these were the very qualities that feminism attacked as leading to patriarchy and the belittling of femininity, and thus along with all the good feminism has done for the world, it also had the unfortunate side-effect of tearing down masculinity in its efforts to build up femininity. As Elwood Watson states in his book Pimps, Wimps, Studs, Thugs and Gentlemen: Essays on Media Images of Masculinity, in the face of feminism and the changing role of women, and the converse effect these things have on men, many men find themselves “frustrated, disenfranchised, and confused... fewer men are attending college, and increasing numbers are dropping out of society altogether.”

Now I’m sure any and every feminist you ask will say it isn’t the goal of feminism to destroy manhood, and any marriage-seeking woman will tell you the attractiveness of those proactive masculine qualities, but also that it’s getting harder and harder to find men who possess them. In essence, it’s not that feminism destroyed masculinity, but rather that after the redefining of masculinity that feminism necessarily brought to the table, no one stepped in to fill the masculine gap with something new and better. If the plight of women is there are too many messages in society about what a woman should be like, the plight of men is they’re not getting enough of them.

Personally, I think this is the reason why comic books, high fantasy, science fiction, video games, and tabletop roleplaying exploded so much among men when they were invented. It’s not that sports were the only acceptable pastime for a man, but that most everything else carried a stigma of femininity and emasculation. As soon as someone invented a new activity that didn’t have that stigma, men flocked to it like desert travelers to an oasis.

However, there is hope. There are those who are questioning the definition of masculinity we currently teach and are looking to improve it. My wife, Rachel, is currently working on a paper to hopefully publish about the Brony movement: the 20-something, straight, college-educated, male fans of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. These men are attacked on news programs and comedy shows as being nothing short of a group of gay-pediphile-losers, but the Brony Study has recently concluded that all evidence shows Bronies have no higher levels of feminine behavior, homosexuality, unemployment, mental illness, or any other ‘answer’ people like to give for the movement’s existence. Bronies are completely normal for their age and demographic. So after months of research, she found 2 factors that most directly account for the existence of Bronies:

1. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is simply a very, very well-made show.

and

2. When men realize fact #1 after watching a few episodes, they also realize that their initial aversion to the show was simply based on the fact that it’s feminine. But why? Why should they be afraid of something just because it’s feminine? They don’t fear femininity, they don’t hate women, so why stop watching one of the best written shows on the air just because the show was initially targeting girls?

Many Bronies even take this a step further, turning the show into something akin to a lifestyle. When faced with a well-written show that sets about teaching good life-lessons, they started taking those messages to heart, using them in their personal lives, artistic endeavors, and interactions with others. These men aren’t embracing femininity, but rather are using a show that celebrates femininity to find the aspects that also apply to them (the best personality traits, after all, are usually gender neutral.) These Bronies are redefining, strengthening, and celebrating masculinity through their love of the show, and as such find uniquely masculine ways to incorporate the show into their lives, from Dusty the “Manliest Brony in the World,” to Living Tombstone the celebrated Brony electronic music artist.

Here's one of my favorite examples linked below, just because it's the internet and I can.

Just in case you didn't get it the first time around, Discord is the name of a villain from My Little Pony season 2.

I know there are people who heckle any time someone brings up the plights of men or white people or any other so-called ‘dominant group,’ but as a father of two small boys I’ve done quite a bit of thinking on the subject, and I honestly believe that it’s time we started worrying about men and masculinity as much as we do other things. Whenever I hear sociologists talk about gang and crime problems or feminists talk about the continued troubles women face, all I can think is “if we just fixed the messages we send boys about what a man should be, we’d fix just about every one of those problems in a generation.”

What follows are simply musings of my own about what I believe this new definition of manhood should entail. Some could point out that this isn’t a set of guidelines but rather personality traits, and traits that are bent toward the straight, probably white and middle class man, but these aren’t supposed to be a set of guidelines. Much of our understanding of gender comes from the influence of icons on our lives, and this is simply my take on what the most relatable iconic man of the 21st Century would probably be like, if he were to appear in life, film, or literature.

The Iconic Man

• The Iconic Man is physically fit, and has at least a basic competency with boxing, martial arts, and firearms. He knows how to handle himself in a fight, and he makes others feel safer just by being around.

• The Iconic Man doesn’t fear ‘womanly things’. He can enjoy Broadway musicals, ballet, My Little Pony, and well-written chick flicks because he knows his manhood isn’t so flimsy that a breath of femininity would blow it away; he knows that masculinity and femininity aren’t in competition with each other, and should never be treated as if they were.

• The Iconic Man knows how to take care of himself. He knows how to cook, clean, and do laundry. He isn’t a baby who needs a mommy to cook his meals and clean up after him.

• The Iconic Man is caring, compassionate, and sensitive to other’s feelings. He knows these attributes are the basis of personal strength.

• The Iconic Man is a good father. He can play with kids, take care of their needs, and teach them things without feeling overwhelmed.

• The Iconic Man is disciplined. He can follow directions, hold his baser human impulses in check, and be a self-motivated individual.

• The Iconic Man is brave. If someone’s in danger or something must be done quickly, he keeps his cool and does what he can to help. He is not, however, reckless, and doesn’t put himself or others in danger in search of some cheap thrill.

• The Iconic Man is a leader. He can take charge of a situation and make sure things get done. He can delegate and council well with others.

• The Iconic Man is a follower. He knows when another is more qualified than he and how to support them in their work. He is a good team player.

• The Iconic Man is responsible. He takes responsibility for his actions and mistakes, he follows through with assignments, and he can be depended on.

• The Iconic Man is artistic. He has at least a basic competency in either singing, playing an instrument, artistry, or some other creative endeavor, and he can understand and appreciate art and beauty for its own sake.

• The Iconic Man is articulate. He does not need to speak often, but when he does he knows how to speak well and clearly. He can express himself in person, prose, or poetry with at least a basic competency.

• The Iconic Man is respectful of others. He does not enjoy angering others, and even in debate over charged topics, he does his best to be understanding of his opponent. He does not physically or emotionally abuse or manipulate.

• The Iconic Man is morally strong. Even when being considerate, he does not back down from his beliefs, does not balk principle, and while he doesn’t enjoy angering others, he refuses to be wishy-washy.

• The Iconic Man does not need to be in the military, but he has the mental, physical, and emotional fortitude that he could do it if it were required of him.

• The Iconic Man is humble. He knows he does not know everything, and he acknowledges the points of his opponents in a debate, even when discussing politics or religion. After all, he is still learning himself, and he knows only a fool thinks he has nothing to learn from another’s views.

• The Iconic Man is romantic. He knows how to please a woman and make her feel special, not as part of some ‘pick-up technique’, but because he genuinely wants her to feel that way.

• The Iconic Man is responsible with sex. He is not a slave to impulses, and he is too responsible to risk a pregnancy outside of the time and place of his choosing, with a woman he wants to start a family with. He would never, ever, ever touch a woman in a way that was unwelcome. He treats both sex and the person he is having it with with the utmost respect.

• The Iconic Man is intelligent. He doesn’t need to be college educated, but he does regularly read and know how to use a computer. He enjoys good discourse, and never stops learning new things.

• The Iconic Man is an authority figure in his own home. His children love him and know he loves them, but they also respect him and know he cannot be manipulated or intimidated, and that his word is law. He not only makes them feel loved, but also makes them feel safe.

• The Iconic Man treats his wife well. He knows that while he may be an authority figure to his children, he is a partner to his wife, and gives her respect and support, just as he expects to receive it from her.

• The Iconic Man knows how to dance. He need not be excellent, but he knows how to move well and how to lead a woman through a waltz without embarrassing himself.

• The Iconic Man is helpful. When disaster strikes another, he doesn’t say ‘that sucks,’ he says ‘what can I do to help?’

• The Iconic Man is attractive. He knows how to dress well, how to care for his clothes, and how to clean himself up. He owns a suit and feels comfortable wearing it.

• The Iconic Man is honest. He doesn’t break his promises, and as such doesn’t make a promise lightly. He’d rather be honest, even when it reflects badly upon himself, than lie to get ahead.

• The Iconic Man is good with his hands. He’s physically strong, and he can change a tire, work with basic tools, put furniture together, etc. He can at least make an attempt at a repair job before calling in the professionals.

• The Iconic Man is adventurous. He loves excitement and cultivating new experiences.

• The Iconic Man is friendly. He has many close friends and is welcoming toward others. He isn’t afraid to be emotionally close to other people, be they spouse or friend.

• The Iconic Man knows history, both the world’s and that of his own family. He respects his parents and his ancestors, and seeks to build upon the good things they have already done.

• The Iconic Man is good with money. He need not have a lot of it, but he can stay out of debt and take care of himself.

• The Iconic Man is patient, and has perspective. He knows how to wait, he knows when to let go of unimportant things, and he never lets things get him down for long.

• The Iconic Man doesn’t put inappropriate value on material things. Stuff is stuff, nothing more.

• The Iconic Man is proactive. He doesn’t whine. He doesn’t let his mistakes get him down, but instead learns from them and keeps on going.

• The Iconic Man doesn’t let those who depend on him down, and cares about their happiness.

Does it sound to you like I’ve distilled every good virtue in the world into one list? Like I’m asking men to strive for some sort of personal perfection in an unending battle to become better people?

Yep.

That’s Manhood.

Story Architecture-Doing Too Much

When I was young, someone told me that my problem wasn't going to be finding what I was good at.  My problem was going to be focusing myself on a few things so I could be great.  I was one of those kids in high school who went from jazz band to show choir to musical practice to cross country, and even at the college level where you can't divide your specialty, I still managed to study novel writing, singing, acting, film, commercial dance and ballroom dance, all while gaming and being married with 2 children.

Spreading myself too thin has always been a problem, and I'm sure a lot of my pursuits were hampered by just how much time I kept dedicating to other things, but I sort of can't help it.  I'm grateful for the varied experience it's given me, and I'm sure it shows through in my characterizations, but it's just something I've always had a problem with.

Why do I bring this up now?  Because I'm planning my future product lines for Drop Dead Studios, and it's starting to look like my college life.  There are companies out there who make a game and dedicate themselves to it (Paizo, LotFP, Autarch.)  There are companies that make a variety of tabletop goods all centered around a custom campaign setting (Kobold Press, Louis Porter Jr. Design,) but me? I've got plans for the Seraphuul campaign setting, player options to go with it, a video game to set in it, and possibly a youtube series based on it.

And I've got 2 more campaign settings I'll be working on to.

And I'm ok with that. That will be a whole frikkin' lot of work on my end, but I am absolutely ok with that.  And that's because I don't think it's ok to plan small. I think 's ok to start small, but I've heard time and again from people who work in video games, movies, television, and youtube serials that we've moved past the age of story-writing and into the age of story architecture. A good IP needs to be more than a single entity: it needs to be translatable across platforms and mediums. A TV show becomes a comic book series becomes a movie becomes a video game.

Am I stretching myself too thin again?  Possibly.  But I'd rather take the risk and make something grand than sit tight and go slow. And I think Seraphuul is good enough to make the jump.

Wish me luck,

Adam out.

The Complete Campaign

I know there are many ways to play a tabletop RPG.  For some, it's all about combat, or dungeon delves, or living a novel where you travel place to place in search of an ultimate goal.  In many ways, that's what new-age gaming is about.

For others, however, once those limitations are lifted they go straight for what I'd call the 'Complete Campaign.' The game where anything goes, where people truly live in the world around them, and expect it to grow with and react to not just who they fight, but what they buy and how they live.  This is I think illustrated no better than what happened at my own table last week.

In that GM's last campaign, we never left the dungeon.  We went from level 1 to 18 following the same storyline, in the same dungeon, and mostly delving with the same equipment (he worked out a system we could still craft magic items on the go, and we milked that mechanic for all it was worth.)  In his second campaign though, the one we're in right now, we had a degree of freedom: we were working for a mercenary company without much direction other than to go on missions and wait for the GM to start the 'main storyline.'  We just reached level 2, and had a collective total of 10,000 gp after selling the loot and earning money from our last mission.  Last week the table conversation went pretty much like this:

Me: "I know traditionally we should be buying +1 weapons or something, but we have a lot of money here.  I'm thinking real estate."

GM: "You already have free lodging in the barracks."

Me: "Or we could make a trade expedition up north to double our money."

GM: "There's no one up north to trade with."

Other Player 1: "Then we'll move to a new city and open our own mercenary company, franchising out the name of our parent company for PR reasons."

Other Player 2: "Can we get a ship and be pirates too?"

And from there, in less than 10 minutes, we'd planned out how we would build offices, run a tavern and inn, our process for hiring future henchmen, our plans for eventually opening our own port and controlling shipping in the northern sea, and how we hoped to expand past mercenaries into a full adventurer's guild (not a party, but a guild) sending out adventurers of our own. Again, this planning session was going on while we were still level 2.

Now I know not every group is like this.  Heck, one guy actually left our group because going a session without a combat was just not enough fighting for his taste. But still, I've noticed a trend recently among professionals and fans toward this sort of complete fantasy world package.

I've heard that in the old days, the expansion products were almost exclusively dungeon-related, because that's just the kind of game people seemed to want. In WotC's 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide II, there were some rules for running a store and training an apprentice, but the assumption was still made that players would want to move past those 'boring' parts, if they ever came up at all, and get back to killing things as quickly as possible.  And yet when 4th came around, declaring combat alone the focus of the game and was firmly rejected by much of the fanbase, it seems people began to pattern the game not around what it could do with combat systems, but what it could do beyond the miniatures and combat rounds.

Pathfinder is releasing their new book Ultimate Campaign May 22nd (the hardcover is on preorder,) which from what I understand is a lot of info on this very subject. Kingmaker, their series about how to run your own kingdom, is still a fan favorite, being adapted and readapted for many home campaigns.  Adventurer Conqueror King has recently come out to much acclaim, as it's a system designed specifically to help you organically grow from sellsword to monarch in a single, seamless transition. And now on the new WotC-endorsed comic Table Titans, you can read people's stories about their most memorable game moments, with a surprising number of which detailing how surprisingly fun it was when a PC decided to run a farm, or that following the local's love lives was more fun than killing monsters.

This trend isn't exclusive to tabletop RPGs.  Computer RPGs have been focusing more and more on this side of things.  It's not just things like Skyrim's Hearthfire expansion (which some people thought was horrible, but others didn't think went far enough,) but even Paizo's biggest hook for why their upcoming Pathfinder MMO would be great was the way it would let you own homes, run shops, build communities, etc., and actually change the game world through your actions. Shrowd of the Avatar is looking like another record-breaking Kickstarter campaign, and it's big pull is the same thing: a world you can live in, not just dungeon-delve in. Even Project Eternity made a big deal about your ability to build a personal home and affect the world around you, and had to actually announce that you WOULDN'T be able to get married, as romance options were one of the things fans were clammering for. In fact there are those out there who complain that all modern CRPGs are turning into dating simulators, but at the same time there are those fans who keep demanding games where anything, including complex romances, is possible, claiming it adds a depth of realism and investment that they need to truly be able to get lost in a fantasy world.

I love killing monsters as much as the next man, but even I'll admit that with games like Skyrim and the Fable series, it was the game's limits, rather than its capabilities, that most stood out to me (Fable gave me marriage options with no emotional investment and the ability to own businesses without any control over their operation.  Skyrim is a gorgeous game with a living world, but other than buying a house and picking the NPC to inhabit it, there really isn't much you can do to really, truly live in the world except keep on exploring and finding new quests to do.)

Yes there are many reasons to play tabletop RPGs and many different gaming styles, but may I make one argument in favor of the complete campaign? For many of us, isn't this freedom to do whatever we want, limited only by our imaginations, one of the big pulls of tabletop RPGs in the first place? I am in no way saying a good mega-dungeon is an inferior gaming style- in fact, I wish I could do more of them. Rather, I'm just making the observation that both GMs and Players might find it worthwhile to give this a try and invest in the game world beyond where the next encounter will be found. After all, few things raises the emotional stakes and gets players invested faster than when it's their own tavern being overrun by goblins, it's the castle they build and designed themselves being besieged by orcs, and it's their own wife-not from a backstory, but one they married at level 5 and had a child with by level 10- who's been kidnapped but dark wizards.

Just a thought.

Adam out.

OSR vs Pathfinder

If you've been living under a rock for the last decade, you might not know the edition war in D&D has stopped being a war and started being a collection of different nations, each with their own constitutions and understandings of how the game is supposed to be played.  Recently I've read some blog posts about this, as particularly OSR people are asked to justify why they reject new-age gaming.  I even read one post that called all modern editions 'adolescent power fantasies' and nothing but 'poorly-designed war games instead of adventure games'.

The thing is, I don't explicitly disagree with any of the points they made (newer editions certainly have the potential to pander to power fantasies, and as war games they don't do the tactical simulation game as well as, well, actual tactical simulaions,) but as I am neither an adolescent engaging in power fantasies, nor an uneducated wargamer, I got curious lately about why I enjoyed Pathfinder.  Since no one generally gets asked to justify their enjoyment of new-age gaming (it's just the status quo for modern gamers,) I thought I'd take a look at Pathfinder as contrasted with OSR gaming, to find what I enjoy about doing both.

OSR vs Pathfinder

I should make 2 confessions before I start this:

First, I wasn't there at the beginning of gaming.  I was raised on D&D 2nd edition, and sort of missed 3rd until 4th was already on the market, so I'm basing this not on years of experience or gaming nostalgia, but on my own reading of the OSR and D20 rules as they are currently, modernly, being interpreted.

Second, the whole appeal of D&D-inspired games is their universality, their ability to let a GM run whatever style of game they want.  Thus any system can encompass any style of gaming if the GM and players decide to pursue that style in question.  My goal, then, is to look not at what style of game CAN be done with a system, but at what style of game the system implies: what style of game is easier to do with a given set of rules, and what style of game would require a skilled GM, houserules, and improvisation to accomplish.

So without further ado, let's look at what makes up an OSR game as modernly interpreted, vs a D20 game as modernly interpreted.

THE BASICS

OSR

Death: Frequent, sometimes unavoidable (save or die).

Character Creation: Quick, simple.

Combats: Fast, simple, doesn't need miniatures at all.
Experience: Often includes experience for loot and other non-combat options.

D20

Death: Infrequent, almost always avoidable (no save or die).

Character Creation: Long, complicated.

Combats: Slow, complicated, usually involves miniatures.
Experience: Usually combat-only, unless the GM wants to include a story award or other houserule.

That was short, right?  There are, of course, different versions of both D20 and OSR, but in general these are the differences as accepted by both camps.

Implications of the Above:

In the current Pathfinder campaign I'm playing in, the GM told me before we started that he was having trouble figuring out a way to throw the characters together/figuring out what was going to forge the players into a single band.  Likewise, he commented about how at the beginning the players would be joining a mercenary crew and taking contracts and how he hoped that would be alright and not boring.  This got me thinking: Isn't that the cliche already, the easy way out?  Some adventurers meet in a bar and take a contract?

But really, this tradition is a holdover from older editions, not an actual aspect of the modern game's implied style.  Because character creation is such a short affair in OSR gaming, most games are built around this idea that characters can just be swapped in and out as they may die.  This is where the tradition of adventuring parties as more-or-less independent mercenary companies comes from: they can have a great purpose if needed, but it could just as easily be booze, whores and gold that is their grand motivation.  but the system is simple: an organized group doing jobs, earning money, gaining prestige, and when someone dies, a 'new member' appears to take his place.

Associated with this, most OSR characters are not quite as backstory-heavy as in other games.  If you could die the first session, why claim your character is the destined reincarnation of an ancient god?  Rather, players begin as more 'normal' people who achieve their greatness through adventuring, rather than claiming to have it from the beginning.

Finally, OSR games are more likely to involve army battles, hirelings, and other NPCs during combats.  If the combats are simple enough that they don't need miniatures and only take 10 minutes, than including a cast of 15 extras to the field and integral small-group tactics would take an hour or so at most.

D20, however, is a completely different bundle of fish.  In Pathfinder, at least, character creation can take hours, and with this (or even because of this,) character death doesn't happen nearly that often.  Rules for bleeding out and applying first aid, cantrips like stabilize  and an HP bloat from the 3/3.5 days mean players can usually be assured their characters won't die, or at least won't die easily.  This means that a lot more can be emotionally invested in the character in question and their backstories. (I know unusual backstories have existed across all editions, but at least from my own personal experience as a GM, it's only in the newer editions that a player tries to convince me he should be allowed to play a minotaur alchemist, trained by immortal ninjas, riding a clockwork snail, who's the reincarnation of an ancient god destined to reunite the faerie world with ours and rule a small country, whether my campaign world could incorporate that or not.)

The complex combats and enormous lists of abilities the average Pathfinder character has means combat takes a long, long time.  This, in turn, means preparing for a combat can take hours, and most GMs don't like it if the players decide on a course of action that negates those hours of preparation.  Newer-age games, at least as far as I have seen both professionally and in home-brew campaigns, are more likely to railroad the players: the illusion of player choice, but which always end up in the appointed times in the appointed places to engage in the appointed combats.  In some cases, games can be reduced to nothing but combat after combat, each one 3-4 hours long, with all non-combat options nearly extinct.

Verdict: 

OSR games are about adventuring.  About going strange places, taking contracts, delving dungeons, fighting enemies or avoiding them, all as the players decide.  Much more sandbox-ish, and not nearly as focused on combat as on living an alternate life in a dangerous fantasy world.  Sneaking past enemies, talking past enemies, or just running are all valid options during combat, and the interplay of the characters is more important than the mechanics, as the mechanics are simple enough to learn in an hour.

Pathfinder, instead, is a hero game, or rather a story game.  It is much easier to incorporate backstories into a Pathfinder game, because you are virtually guaranteed the character will be around long enough to 'fulfill his destiny,' etc.  This is a game designed to recreate an Epic Fantasy, where a group of rag-tag friends complete grand story-arcs in their pursuit of an ultimate objective.  Long combats with little actual chance of death, designed to tell the GM's grand novel, with the players cast in the roles of the leads.

I guess that's why I find myself attracted to both systems.  I love the OSR approach to gaming: sandbox adventures, quick combats, a very real chance of death, a very open, non-combat side to the game that rewards ingenuity, and meaningful player choice.  But at the same time, Pathfinder is much more suited to elaborate characters, backstories that play integrally into the story, etc, which I also like.  However, Pathfinder also has somethings I don't like: non-lethal combats, hours-long combats, a game so focused on combats that the rest of the game is simply seen as an interlude (there was a reason Wizards of the Coast thought 4th Ed would be a good idea: it's just another step in the direction 3rd was already going.)

In the end I won't declare either system wins out for my own style of gaming.  OSR gaming can fit all those requirements, but Pathfinder also provides a fun gaming style, so long as my players and I all know and agree that certain implied aspects of Pathfinder will be changed at my table.

Perhaps that's the lesson to learn here.  Studying different takes on the same game, can give you insights, letting you pick, choose, and combine the best parts from each system for your own style of game.

I guess I can live with that message:

'Thinking is good.'

Adam out.

Branding

Branding. It exists in the minds of your audience, and is the sum total of all your interactions with them.  It includes your professional work ("aren't you that guy who writes Sci-Fi?"), your personal habits ("aren't you that guy who kills off a player each gaming session?"), or how you choose to communicate ("aren't you that guy who retweets pictures of cats all day?").  It doesn't matter what kind of creator you are: your brand is everything.  It tells people if you're good to work with, or if your products are worth buying.

As an actor, I took classes on how to brand, or at least how to be careful about it.  After all, as an actor your first film role can define you for the rest of your life.  The topic also comes up a lot among game designers, writers, video bloggers, etc., since it's a pretty big part of the life of any content creator.

Brands have been occupying my mind a lot lately, as they relate to my recent life and work.  While I hope I won't become "that guy who is introspective a lot," I feel the need to explain the process I've gone through to create a brand I could be proud of, and why it's cost me so much creative energy and so many abandoned projects for the past few years:

1. First, I was going to go to New York to be an actor.  I had my camera and a love of new media, and lots of plans not only for being in movies and musicals, but for doing things like video journals, youtube serials, and other projects.  However, being a father of 2 small children before I even set out for the NYC, I quickly realized the city just wasn't set up to receive an upcoming actor with that kind of financial responsibility.
2. Next, I moved back to Provo, Utah.  My wife was making a good deal of money teaching professors to use the university's new computer programs, and I was ready to become a stay-at-home dad.  However, that wasn't going to stop me from creating, and along with my actual writing I had big plans to do video game reviews, author interviews, youtube shows, and serial fiction stories.  However, a partner had a baby, taking care of my own children was more draining than I'd thought, the interviews just weren't of a quality where I was comfortable releasing them, and it was taking everything I could just to get some sort of creative work done, let alone on the kind of regular schedule a review show or serial fiction story would require.
3. Even now, I just got done doing some experimental interviews at LTUE to see if author interviews could be made funny in the way that makes a quippy youtube video.  The short answer?  No they can't, or at least not unless I wanted to create an entire website and weekly series that used them as part of a larger initiative which I just don't have the time to make.

That's a lot of projects that never worked out.  The desire to avoid a bad brand has led me to abandon several projects that I felt weren't good enough to be worth releasing, or that I just wouldn't have the time to make as good as they should be.  Starting and stopping all these projects has certainly cut into the time I could have spent actually creating.

But there have been several things I've done that HAVE been good for me.  I've released two RPG products that have both been very, very well received.  I've given presentations at CONduit and LTUE on weapons and the psychology and culture of warfare that have gone over pretty well, or so the people I talked to afterward said as much.

Do I regret the time I spent on these projects that ended up abandoned?  Sort of.  I enjoy knowing I don't have a reputation for abysmal content forever haunting me from the bowels of the internet, but at the same time what have I learned from all those months trying to figure out my brand?  That nothing I've done has been worth sharing with the world but the actual content I've created, and the presentations I've given at conventions on my different areas of expertise.

I'm an actor at heart, so you can very much expect me to start up a video series sometime, but it will be short, meandering, and will only exist as it doesn't distract from the more important job of creating publishable content.  (Probably normal interviews with authors, plus coverage of the conventions I attend, and whatever else I find that week that's worth mentioning.)  And I'll be maintaining this blog, of course.  But still, after so many months of trying different approaches, when it comes to developing a brand I can use as a creator, nothing has been as helpful as attending conventions, blogging, and just making good products people want to buy.  Just a thought for the day.

LTUE Schedule

Today, I will be on the "reading to learn writing" panel at 9 am.

Tomorrow, I will be moderating the "Creating Effective Fight Scenes" panel at 11 am.

Saturday, I'll be making an idiot out of myself and embarrassing professional authors on camera in the main hall from about 10 to 1.

This is the first LTUE in 3 years where I won't be giving a presentation on something warfare-related, but I think it should be a good time anyway.  Now I just need to find out where I can sell Rogue Glory copies since I completely forgot about it until just now.

The New Dragon Riding

When I started this blog, it was going to be about an actor-novelist.  I was going to New York to act, I was working on books... heck, I even have my picture up really huge in the title image, which is something only an actor can get away with.

But then life changed.  I still act (I just did a film that should be out about mid-2013 called Ephraim's Rescue,) but it isn't my focus anymore.  To top that off, I've now started an RPG design company (Drop Dead Studios) which has gotten off to some very good reviews.

So does that mean this blog is going to be yet another writer/game designer blog?  Eh, I'll make it cool anyway.

So over this week, I'll be changing this blog to reflect, well, the new reality.  I'm changing the name from Life of the Modern Bard to Dragon Riding, and while it will still be a personal blog, I'll be writing about my current projects, which include acting, novels, game design, and whatever else I try to do (I'd love to get into video game design as well, since it seems like such an easy fit with my other interests.)

Stay tuned, you all.